* Willimon’s dichotomy between objective truth and the person of Jesus is undeserving of his otherwise gifted mind [“Jesus’ Peculiar Truth,” March 4]. Objective truth (which he never carefully defines) simply means that we don’t create truth, but discover it in a reality that exists independently of ourselves. This view is neither “Enlightenment,” as he claims, nor unbiblical.
New Testament creedal statements are not only confessions of faith, but assertions of fact. Faith in the person of Jesus is intimately tied to objective historical truth. Let’s not confuse the excesses of naturalistic rationalism with the objectivity of truth. The result can be none other than a return to the “encounter theology” of theological liberalism.
– Jim Leffel
Columbus, Ohio
* While finding myself in hearty agreement with Willimon’s central point–that Christianity is about a Person rather than a set of propositions–I am puzzled as to why he poses an unnecessary dilemma: that somehow the proclamation of the gospel and the defense of objective truth are (tactically, at least) mutually exclusive endeavors. To claim that unbelievers may be misled into thinking they can reason their way to God is to misunderstand the purpose and role of apologetics. Apologetic teaching does not supplant the proclamation of the gospel, it only serves as a supplement.
To downplay the teaching of objective truth in favor of “just preaching the gospel” is to ignore the reality that our entire access to the Person he advocates rests on the reliability of a book that is misunderstood and maligned in our modern day. Sometimes we must overcome the defenses of the mind before an individual can lower the barriers of the heart.
– Arthur F. Witulski
Tucson, Ariz.
CALMING THEOLOGICAL WATERS
* Thank you for featuring the excellent article “Who Do Scholars Say That I Am?” as your [March 4] cover story. With so much attention given nationally in the secular media to the Jesus Seminar, the scholarly balance and “equal time” by James Edwards is refreshing, intellectually stimulating, and edifying to the body of Christ. As a lay associate in a Lutheran (ELCA) church, I am often confronted by parishioners who are dazed and confused by the media blitz generated by the likes of the Jesus Seminar. This article will go a long way toward calming such theological waters.
– Randall J. Upgren
Bismarck, N.Dak.
SPEAKING THE TRUTH IN LOVE
Oden’s editorial [“Why I Believe in Heresy,” March 4] is ironic on two counts. First, Oden would not be in a position to write such a statement if a mechanism for identifying heresy and enforcing sanctions against it had been in place in the “pre-orthodox” portion of his career. He might be selling insurance instead of teaching theology in a denominational seminary.
Second, the use of Luther as an exemplary heresy fighter raises the very question Oden wants to deny. Luther’s writings were denounced as heresy by the church in which he served as a priest. So was he a heretic or not? Differing answers to this question have led to the fracturing of Christendom into competing denominations over a period of nearly 500 years. Thus, the fight over heresy led to division in the church and not to unity.
Heresy is a pejorative word, and its use has often led to the heightening of conflict rather than to resolution. The term changes the nature of theology from a discussion among believers to a battle between belligerents. Having written theology from a variety of perspectives, Oden now wishes us to see his current phase as the standard by which all others are judged. What will happen if he changes his mind again?
– A. Bruce Lindgren
Independence, Mo.
* In his editorial, Thomas Oden argues that “A center without a circumference is a dot, nothing more. Without boundaries, a circle is not a circle.” While I agree, I believe it is equally important to point back to the center and add that “A circle that makes no clear distinctions between the center and circumference is no circle. It is a larger dot, nothing more.” In other words, a danger equal to a circle with a center but no boundaries is a boundary that ignores degrees of proximity to the center. One is the error of liberal inclusiveness. The other is the error of conservative exclusiveness. One all too easily becomes a set compatible with anything and everything–a condition of meaninglessness. The other all too easily becomes a set incompatible with any diversity–a condition of stasis and stagnation.
Let me propose a different, much less precise image for the church focused on a center with open but real boundaries: the old-fashioned tent revival. The rickety folding chairs sitting in sawdust all faced toward the center. But the boundaries of the revival meeting were less clear than the center–especially on those warm summer afternoons the sides of the tent or tabernacle were wide open and the congregation spilled out into the open air and shade. It was difficult to say exactly who was in the tent and who was out of it. Some found it too hot in the tent. Others were just there to watch. Nobody particularly minded the fuzzy margins. But then there were the distant onlookers and catcallers, and the boys stealing hubcaps in the parking lot. The ushers knew how to deal with them. Just because they were facing the center of the revival was no excuse for disrupting it.
I remember an evangelist who had a standard line for the interested onlookers who simply hung around the tent’s edges throughout the revival. One night, toward the close of every revival, he would stop in the middle of his sermon, point at them over the heads of the folks under the tent, and challenge them to “Either get in or get out!” It worked.
According to this image, the heretics are the catcallers and the hubcap stealers. Each revival (denomination) will have to decide for itself what to do with those hanging around the margins, but I still like the evangelist’s challenge to those not moving at least gradually toward the center: “Either get in or get out!”
– Prof. Roger E. Olson
Bethel Theological Seminary
St. Paul, Minn.
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MISPERCEPTIONS
In the March 4 issue, a news brief summarized the U.S. Supreme Court decision to let stand a $1.5 million compensatory judgment against a Christian Science couple charged with not seeking medical care for their child. The last sentence, that the damages were in response to “church teachings against medical treatment of the sick,” is a false perception.
There is no church doctrine or policy against medical treatment, nor against those church members who may seek its help. Instead, the teachings of Christian Science are for full reliance on God’s healing power. Christian Scientists have the utmost respect for those in the medical profession. Still, spiritual treatment is their first choice because it works, not because they’re afraid of reprimand or of violating some church teaching.
I would also like to correct one smaller detail. Rather than “two practitioners,” there was one practitioner and one Christian Science nurse involved.
– M. Victor Westberg
First Church of Christ, Scientist
Boston, Mass.
LOVING JEWS AND PALESTINIANS
* I would like to correct a point from Richard Kauffman’s conversation with Elias Chacour [March 4]. It is, in fact, perfectly legal to speak of faith in Jesus Christ openly in the land of Israel. Israeli Jewish Christians and others have taken advantage of such freedom for more than ten years to proclaim the gospel through literature distribution in public places, evangelistic advertisements in Israeli newspapers, and open air presentations and proclamation of their faith in Y’shua [Jesus] HaMashiach [the Messiah/Christ].
It was good to see Chacour quoted as saying to American evangelicals that “friendship to the Jews” need not be interpreted as “automatic enmity with the Palestinians.” I hope readers will be moved to love both Jewish and Palestinian people for the sake of the gospel.
However, Chacour’s clear failure to invite all Jews and Palestinians to faith in Christ seems most unfriendly and unloving. There is no other invitation to faith but the hope in a Jewish Messiah. While that notion might be sociologically hard for many Jewish and Palestinian people, it was Y’shua who defined the accepted approach into a relationship with God: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through me” [John 14:6].
– Tuvya Zaretsky
Los Angeles, Calif.
Editor’s note: There is a law in Israel against proselytizing; however, Christians are able to give expression to their faith in Christ.
SIMILAR NAMES, DIFFERENT COLLEGES
An article in the March 4 issue titled “Ad Campaign Upsets Students” mentioned several colleges that refused to run ads supplied by Campus Crusade in campus newspapers. One college mentioned, Randolph-Macon College, should have been Randolph-Macon Woman’s College. The two colleges in Virginia are independent of each other, although their names are similar.
– Linda Evans
Ashland, Va.
ALL U.S. MINORITIES HAVE SUFFERED
It seems to me, as a Mexican-American reader, that the only minority that exists in the U.S. is the African-American minority [“Separate and Equal,” Feb. 5]. While I hold sympathies for the way some have been treated, I also realize that my family is only a second-generation American family, both sets of my grandparents having arrived in the U.S. in the early portion of this century from Mexico. They never owned slaves, and they did not personally contribute to the racial problem African Americans have experienced here in America. With this in mind, I have to ask, Why do I keep getting bombarded with stories of oppressed African Americans? Were they the only ones ever to suffer prejudicial treatment? What of the Irish Catholics in the 1800s, the Yellow Peril of the early portion of this century, the Zoot Suit riots of the forties, the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, the treatment of Native Americans throughout our history, as well as the treatment of Jewish people during the fifties, not to mention the rest who are legitimate minorities who have suffered at the hands of ignorant bigots of every color and nationality. Today, the most oppressed class of minority in the United States is the Mexican immigrant, but we do not find any stories of contrition concerning them.
To divide the community into two groups, black and white, is to destroy the unity Christ has intended to bring to mankind. It restricts access to all who do not fit into these two neat categories, as well as resulting in division in the church. As a pastor of 4,500 active members of all races, our church is taught that Jesus is the great unifier. When race is preached, division is inevitable. It is true, I belong to a minority; but the minority I most strongly identify with is the Christian minority, not my racial heritage. We need to get our priorities straight.
– Pastor David Rosales
Calvary Chapel
Chino, Calif.
REALITY OF THE SPIRIT’S WORK
Thank you for allowing us into the loving heart of Robertson McQuilkin. I wept as I read [“Muriel’s Blessing,” Feb. 5], which stood in such contrast to two other items I had just read in CT: On the one hand, the Southern Baptists were dealing with a missionary and the problematic “slaying in the Spirit.” On the other, a former “televangelist” had now divorced his second wife.
Regardless of one’s perspective on the “slaying” phenomenon, it misses the central work of the Spirit in the life of believers, that of the gradual transformation of the center of one’s being into increased levels of Christlike character.
I wept not only because of the beauty of McQuilken’s love, but also because in some measure, I am on that same bridge of suffering as I see ms slowly stealing so much of what I once valued in my wife of 31 years. Although her straight-A mind is no longer there, and I experience daily the “inconvenience” that Dr. McQuilkin mentioned, I would not exchange places with anyone else. Although the “professional” demonstrated the poverty of her profession when she reduced Dr. McQuilkin’s loving actions to guilt, those who know the fruit of the Spirit know better. It is the McQuilkins in the church who spur me on to continued faithfulness. I am in their debt.
– Dr. Jim Walters
John Brown University
Siloam Springs, Ark.
THERAPEUTIC TOUCH A HERESY?
When I agreed to be interviewed by Joe Maxwell for his news article “Therapeutic Touch Splinters Nursing Community” [Feb. 5], I was happy to share my early skepticism and subsequent respect for its therapeutic effects. As an assistant professor of nursing at Eastern College for 11 years I am eager for my students to be aware of all facets of health care–including any healing modalities their patients may seek out. There is much to learn beyond our traditional Western modalities of care.
Two points of clarification–when I do it I concentrate (or focus) the same as when I lay my stethoscope on a child’s chest–no more, no less. When one uses her hands to assess another, the subjective sensation varies. It could be a thermal sensation or vibrational–or a variety of other possibilities. Maxwell misquoted me as saying “areas of low energy.” I said “areas where there is a change in what I’m feeling with my hands.”
I try never to underestimate my Creator nor do I want to impose the limitations of my human perspective on God. Learning and using it has in no way undermined my faith. Rather, it has increased my awe and love for a God who was brilliant enough to conceive of this creation and loving enough to send us Jesus Christ.
– Christina Jackson
Wayne, Penn.
EARN A PH.D. ON THE INTERNET
* In reference to your News article “Virtual Education” [Feb. 5], I would like to add the name of Regent University to the list. Our classes are equipped with a “dynacom” system that brings television and VCR services to each classroom. But more than this, in the summer of 1994, the Regent University Schools of Communication and Divinity inaugurated a new cyberspace Ph.D. program where students can do all their classroom work by Internet and E-mail.
– Dean Vinson Synan
Regent University School of Divinity
Virginia Beach, Va.
I was thrilled with the news of how some “cyberseminaries are wiring for long-distance learning.” As a professional in extension theological education, I am committed to the implementation of new technology in ministry training. However, the article lacked a crucial warning: Do not fall prey to cyberfraud! Schools should avoid promising what they don’t have and misrepresenting what they do have. There is an epidemic of advertising and public relations that uses vague and sometimes misleading statements with regard to online education. A few occurrences are found in the article itself as well as in CT advertising. Christian institutions should hold high the banner of truth and integrity. In too many cases, schools are making claims for virtually nonexistent virtual education!
– Stephen Kemp
Associate Dean for Non-Traditional
and Distance Education
Trinity International University
Deerfield, Ill.
CORRECTION
In our November 13, 1995, News story, “A Christian Community Makes Waves, Not War,” we identified David Ostrum as speaking for Children of the Bruderhof. Mr. Ostrum is not and never has been a member of that organization. CT regrets the error.
********************
Brief letters are welcome. They may be edited for space and clarity and must include the writer’s name and address. Send to Eutychus, Christianity Today, 465 Gundersen Drive, Carol Stream, IL 60188; fax: 708/260-0114. E-mail: ctedit@aol.com. Letters preceded by * were received online.
Copyright © 1996 Christianity Today, Inc./CHRISTIANITY TODAY Magazine
